I wouldn’t let the three owners anywhere near it, nor the club.

This project would be led outside the club, with it simply having a lease on good terms.Probably about the same as the annual dilaps bill so no net extra cost.

It would be a fantastic initiative, anchored by the Club-no hotels, just a community sports hub with some nice offices and educational/leisure facilities.All covered by a head lease from the Council.

Bringing the club in as co owners would be a disaster

Insurer "what have you done to improve flood"
Club "we've raised the plugs a bit "
Insurer " what have you done about increased risk of sink holes , subsidence , structural integrity"


You really are missing the point , massively . In your head you've got idea but your missing several other costs. Flood resilience is very very expensive , it also just passed the problem to other areas which generally means other people flood .

Loan companies would as have higher rates , due to higher risk. It would be far more costly.

At the end of the day, flood resilience must be cheaper than getting flooded repeatedly, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing. Much like home security is cheaper than getting burgled all the time.

That's not my point , my point is its far more logical to move than stay put.
As better expansion potential , better economic potential and less risk .

Fair enough, but it's clear unless we pick up £20m from Branthwaite going to Real Madrid the club hasn't got the money to buy a new site and build a whole new stadium, nor the balls to take out on one of Laffy's suggested ultra long term low interest loans. Brunton itself is worth [censored] all really.

And the whole enabling development places wheeze that blueyonder was based on is finished long term. The leisure industry is mothballed and traditional shops are dying off, the growth industries are all online now and they don't need shops. The garden village is decades off as well.

Which is why I reckon the only realistic alternative is to redevelop Brunton park a piece at a time as needed.

(We could ask Amazon if they'll build us a stadium at Longtown next to their depot, would please Nobby at least :-) )

Insurer "what have you done to improve flood"
Club "we've raised the plugs a bit "
Insurer " what have you done about increased risk of sink holes , subsidence , structural integrity"


You really are missing the point , massively . In your head you've got idea but your missing several other costs. Flood resilience is very very expensive , it also just passed the problem to other areas which generally means other people flood .

Loan companies would as have higher rates , due to higher risk. It would be far more costly.

At the end of the day, flood resilience must be cheaper than getting flooded repeatedly, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing. Much like home security is cheaper than getting burgled all the time.

That's not my point , my point is its far more logical to move than stay put.
As better expansion potential , better economic potential and less risk .

Insurer "what have you done to improve flood"
Club "we've raised the plugs a bit "
Insurer " what have you done about increased risk of sink holes , subsidence , structural integrity"


You really are missing the point , massively . In your head you've got idea but your missing several other costs. Flood resilience is very very expensive , it also just passed the problem to other areas which generally means other people flood .

Loan companies would as have higher rates , due to higher risk. It would be far more costly.

At the end of the day, flood resilience must be cheaper than getting flooded repeatedly, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing. Much like home security is cheaper than getting burgled all the time.

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Yeah, not sure that right Happy.

The impression I took from the article was that it was like a group policy so it was more take all on the same terms or take none.

Yes the same "terms " as you said, those terms work both ways. The insurance will have stipulations over the agreement .

It's very basic insurance underwriting . I've seen many group wide policies that includes causes that any changes would have to be approved by insurer as part of a group agreement.

So they get approved then - I dunno what your argument is here

St Aidans Gardens Butterfly House Yonder Masterplan: "Dear Insurer, can we rebuild a stand so it's more flood resilient and costs you less if it does flood?"
HappyBlue's Insurer: "No certainly not, we like paying out more money than we need to - we provide no questions asked health insurance for Mullen for gods sake"
Everyone else's Insurer: "Yeh crack on"

You really are missing the point , massively . No point trying to explain to you anymore.

You're right in that I have absolutely no idea what your point is :-)

What is it?

Kappa Tracky Top made me chuckle!

All this stock must be floating around somewhere.

If I was an entrepreneur like Laffy then I would be buying up massive amounts of the cheap stock that will be floating around everywhere with Debenhams, EWM etc going under their stock and suppliers will have stuff sitting around, buy it, stick it in storage and set up a string of 'pop up shops' strategically placed and well advertised, your rent would be minimal plus everyone loves a bargain so from this it could be gauged whether or not going forward with the suppliers if it was a long term thing or not.

This is what I would be doing anyhow, you could start it now and have everyone who has had the jab crammed into a unit in The Lanes killing each other with their germs and through fighting over a five pound Kappa traccy top.

Insurer "what have you done to improve flood"
Club "we've raised the plugs a bit "
Insurer " what have you done about increased risk of sink holes , subsidence , structural integrity"


You really are missing the point , massively . In your head you've got idea but your missing several other costs. Flood resilience is very very expensive , it also just passed the problem to other areas which generally means other people flood .

Loan companies would as have higher rates , due to higher risk. It would be far more costly.

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

The floods were over five years ago now, so the restrictions on the insurance premiums have gone.

They can only ask about 5 years of flood history,but they can still home premiums based on an areas risk .

You could be right. I only know that our "excess" premium dropped out this year.

We used to do -2 years noclaims ,per claim , (i.e if you have 5 years made a claim you would only go down to 3 years not 0) we could only take 5 years of flooding history , indefinite for subsidence .

We would still apply massively loadings to areas with high crime, high subsidence rates and high flooding chance even if no claim had ever been made .

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Yeah, not sure that right Happy.

The impression I took from the article was that it was like a group policy so it was more take all on the same terms or take none.

Yes the same "terms " as you said, those terms work both ways. The insurance will have stipulations over the agreement .

It's very basic insurance underwriting . I've seen many group wide policies that includes causes that any changes would have to be approved by insurer as part of a group agreement.

So they get approved then - I dunno what your argument is here

St Aidans Gardens Butterfly House Yonder Masterplan: "Dear Insurer, can we rebuild a stand so it's more flood resilient and costs you less if it does flood?"
HappyBlue's Insurer: "No certainly not, we like paying out more money than we need to - we provide no questions asked health insurance for Mullen for gods sake"
Everyone else's Insurer: "Yeh crack on"

You really are missing the point , massively . No point trying to explain to you anymore.

I’ve always found it’s relatively easy to take out insurance, much harder to claim on it!

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

The floods were over five years ago now, so the restrictions on the insurance premiums have gone.

They can only ask about 5 years of flood history,but they can still home premiums based on an areas risk .

You could be right. I only know that our "excess" premium dropped out this year.

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Yeah, not sure that right Happy.

The impression I took from the article was that it was like a group policy so it was more take all on the same terms or take none.

Yes the same "terms " as you said, those terms work both ways. The insurance will have stipulations over the agreement .

It's very basic insurance underwriting . I've seen many group wide policies that includes causes that any changes would have to be approved by insurer as part of a group agreement.

So they get approved then - I dunno what your argument is here

St Aidans Gardens Butterfly House Yonder Masterplan: "Dear Insurer, can we rebuild a stand so it's more flood resilient and costs you less if it does flood?"
HappyBlue's Insurer: "No certainly not, we like paying out more money than we need to - we provide no questions asked health insurance for Mullen for gods sake"
Everyone else's Insurer: "Yeh crack on"

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Yeah, not sure that right Happy.

The impression I took from the article was that it was like a group policy so it was more take all on the same terms or take none.

Yes the same "terms " as you said, those terms work both ways. The insurance will have stipulations over the agreement .

It's very basic insurance underwriting . I've seen many group wide policies that includes causes that any changes would have to be approved by insurer as part of a group agreement.

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Yeah, not sure that right Happy.

The impression I took from the article was that it was like a group policy so it was more take all on the same terms or take none.

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

The floods were over five years ago now, so the restrictions on the insurance premiums have gone.

They can only ask about 5 years of flood history,but they can still home premiums based on an areas risk .

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

That's on the current structure , if we change the structure then we void the agreement.

Of the 4 main potential identified blueyonder sites apart from brunton park, one (rosehill) is now housing, another (kingmoor) is inching towards getting a waste incinerator built (yum), the morton one is now earmarked for housing, so there's only the one at carleton left

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

The floods were over five years ago now, so the restrictions on the insurance premiums have gone.

Yeah, Preston is a gym and NHS I think.
However, we have had buildings available in the East Stand (subject to a lift going in and completing the works) since Knighton's days, and not a sniff of a taker.
I just think Carlisle as a city is a bit backward, in the nicest possible sense. Most of the suggestions made (without trying to be a negative ninny) are already taken, saturated, or just don't work.
Fairly full with supermarkets, multiple gyms, including a similar theory DW that did not work, hotels always fail, and a high street that is massively struggling, soon to get worse when Debenhams goes. Not sure what conference facilities we could have.
However, the main drawback we have is a dead end council and hopeless owners, not helped by the waste of space that is the Trust. Our food company owing owners cannot even sort a decent catering facility out, and the commercial department does not bear a mention, so good knows how this lot are going to fund a 7 day week opeartion.

Would you go into business with Knighton or our present owners?
No, nor would I.
and no there isn't a hope in hell they could manage a 7 day a week operation.

True, but its been a long time since Knighton left. There were no takers even in Story's days.

A vision for the future.
If you want to think outside the box build a new Multi-Use Stadium / Conference Centre in English Street, the centre of Carlisle.

This would require the demolition of numerous buildings However virtually all with any architectural or historical significance have been demolished long since. Also, the relocation of a number of businesses but there is and will be significant number of empty commercial businesses (Debenhams, the EWM building in Castle Street and other smaller buildings. Castle Street Abbey Street, Fisher Street, Lowther Street, Scotch Street the Courts area need to be reinvigorated.

The new Centre and the surrounding environs would be designed by an internationally renowned architectural practice, selected by competition (it would appeal to many). Carlisle is endeavouring to be a main transport hub but why in the future will anyone stop here?

BLAH

As the area were the sands built the water never got into the building (think it's very stupid to build there ) and Brunton park is far lower and was under 7ft of water .

So now we're getting onto better building design which is a lot more complex than moving the fuse box .

Then your missing the key factor what impact would the structure have on flooding in the surrounding area. Also how big is the impact that brunton park already has on the flooding in the area.

Then what about developments to make it a 365 day a year facility and then if we ever needed to expand .So staying would massively limit any future growth and revenue streams .

Then factor in the in the problem if climate change whether or not you think it's human caused you can't argue the the ice caps aren't shrinking , so how long is it viable go stay at the lowest point in the city.

"Then your missing the key factor what impact would the structure have on flooding in the surrounding area"

Not as much, there's no petteril end and no main stand :-)


"So now we're getting onto better building design which is a lot more complex than moving the fuse box ."

Still a shit load cheaper doing it at the design stage than ret-conning after the fact :-) that goes for pretty much any project

It's simple enough for flooding - you just raise essential services / expensive bits above the risk height - the tesco that was meant to go at the viaduct had that plan to be on stilts with parking underneath and there's a sainsbury's near me next to the water of leith that does exactly that - for the football ground you obviously can't stop the pitch / lower seating flooding but you can stick the offices and equipment storage up higher and leave the ground floor effectively empty

I'm no engineering expert but you're exhibiting a certain level of pessimism and lack of vision here for "St Aidan's Gardens" :-)

I'm not being pessimistic , if anything I'm looking a potential site were we can grow . Not one we're stuck.

Don't fear change , embrace .

No matter what happens let's hope it's end to the water works bogs as thats were the next pandemic will start.

BLAH

As the area were the sands built the water never got into the building (think it's very stupid to build there ) and Brunton park is far lower and was under 7ft of water .

So now we're getting onto better building design which is a lot more complex than moving the fuse box .

Then your missing the key factor what impact would the structure have on flooding in the surrounding area. Also how big is the impact that brunton park already has on the flooding in the area.

Then what about developments to make it a 365 day a year facility and then if we ever needed to expand .So staying would massively limit any future growth and revenue streams .

Then factor in the in the problem if climate change whether or not you think it's human caused you can't argue the the ice caps aren't shrinking , so how long is it viable go stay at the lowest point in the city.

"Then your missing the key factor what impact would the structure have on flooding in the surrounding area"

Not as much, there's no petteril end and no main stand :-)


"So now we're getting onto better building design which is a lot more complex than moving the fuse box ."

Still a shit load cheaper doing it at the design stage than ret-conning after the fact :-) that goes for pretty much any project

It's simple enough for flooding - you just raise essential services / expensive bits above the risk height - the tesco that was meant to go at the viaduct had that plan to be on stilts with parking underneath and there's a sainsbury's near me next to the water of leith that does exactly that - for the football ground you obviously can't stop the pitch / lower seating flooding but you can stick the offices and equipment storage up higher and leave the ground floor effectively empty

I'm no engineering expert but you're exhibiting a certain level of pessimism and lack of vision here for "St Aidan's Gardens" :-)

Well they are a multi billion pound company , probably feel it's worth the risk.

Sadly it may not be Lidl who see the biggest negative implications of this, in the even of another flood .

I met the land buyer for Lidl a few years ago-they were really keen on the site.But I wouldn’t build on it to be honest.

If we built a new ground out of town I'd probably call it a day.

The simple issue is though if we wanted to update Brunton park then it would have to match the current structural footprint due to flooding . Would have to make its resilient too floods which would cost more and would have nil chance of getting a loan to build it.

We all would prefer the club to stay in the center but it may not be possible . I will support this team no matter where they are in the city .

Making it resilient to floods would cost less in the long run, that's the point of doing it. Having the fusebox on the first floor and the wiring coming down via the ceiling etc costs a bit more first time, but so do energy saving light bulbs

The biggest problem with BP though is that its 3 times bigger capacity than our crowds. It's like a 10 bedroom mansion with two old biddies living in it. Knock down the bits we never use - flatten the petteril end, extend the pitch or the Neil into the space. Then build a new Warwick with new bars etc. Then knock down the main stand and add bog standard seating in its place as the crowds necessitate. Or see if any developers are daft or irresponsible enough to build St Aidans Gardens there. It's still look err unique and unlegolike , but fit for purpose

I've said this before they only reduce the affects of floods , they don't stop things like the structural damage cause by flooding. Also new structures would not get covered by insurance , as the would post date the 2005 and 2015 floods.

So we're stuck with the buildings on Brunton park and the current footprint .

Also your ideas mean more buildings which in the even of the flood may lead to more people getting flooded .

Although I know people won't listen because my Grammar (for some reason that make people think that your point of view is invalid) even if it based upon actually factually evidence.
https://www.todaysconveyancer.co.uk/partner-news/building-flood-plain/
https://www.groundsure.com/resources/building-flood-plain/

Just because they might have to insure existing buildings, doesn't mean they will not insure new buildings. Who's insuring the new sands building for example?


Even if current buildings were covered by insurance, the premiums would be cripplingly high because they get damaged a lot by flooding. The insurers would prefer better designed buildings, so the effect when floods happen is lessened.

As the area were the sands built the water never got into the building (think it's very stupid to build there ) and Brunton park is far lower and was under 7ft of water .

So now we're getting onto better building design which is a lot more complex than moving the fuse box .

Then your missing the key factor what impact would the structure have on flooding in the surrounding area. Also how big is the impact that brunton park already has on the flooding in the area.

Then what about developments to make it a 365 day a year facility and then if we ever needed to expand .So staying would massively limit any future growth and revenue streams .

Then factor in the in the problem if climate change whether or not you think it's human caused you can't argue the the ice caps aren't shrinking , so how long is it viable go stay at the lowest point in the city.

I'm positive that Nixon said after the last flood that we where completely insured as it was group wide policy for the whole EFL/FA and therefore the terms couldn't be changed post the first flood for just one club.

If we built a new ground out of town I'd probably call it a day.

The simple issue is though if we wanted to update Brunton park then it would have to match the current structural footprint due to flooding . Would have to make its resilient too floods which would cost more and would have nil chance of getting a loan to build it.

We all would prefer the club to stay in the center but it may not be possible . I will support this team no matter where they are in the city .

Making it resilient to floods would cost less in the long run, that's the point of doing it. Having the fusebox on the first floor and the wiring coming down via the ceiling etc costs a bit more first time, but so do energy saving light bulbs

The biggest problem with BP though is that its 3 times bigger capacity than our crowds. It's like a 10 bedroom mansion with two old biddies living in it. Knock down the bits we never use - flatten the petteril end, extend the pitch or the Neil into the space. Then build a new Warwick with new bars etc. Then knock down the main stand and add bog standard seating in its place as the crowds necessitate. Or see if any developers are daft or irresponsible enough to build St Aidans Gardens there. It's still look err unique and unlegolike , but fit for purpose

I've said this before they only reduce the affects of floods , they don't stop things like the structural damage cause by flooding. Also new structures would not get covered by insurance , as the would post date the 2005 and 2015 floods.

So we're stuck with the buildings on Brunton park and the current footprint .

Also your ideas mean more buildings which in the even of the flood may lead to more people getting flooded .

Although I know people won't listen because my Grammar (for some reason that make people think that your point of view is invalid) even if it based upon actually factually evidence.
https://www.todaysconveyancer.co.uk/partner-news/building-flood-plain/
https://www.groundsure.com/resources/building-flood-plain/

Just because they might have to insure existing buildings, doesn't mean they will not insure new buildings. Who's insuring the new sands building for example?


Even if current buildings were covered by insurance, the premiums would be cripplingly high because they get damaged a lot by flooding. The insurers would prefer better designed buildings, so the effect when floods happen is lessened.

Happy-are Lidl going in along the road and what are they doing to sort things?

Haven't seen much on it , just gave it a read now . It's a very risky move from Lidl and the city council , some might saying tempting face, it could increase the affect of flooding to home by decreasing run off area . Would it decrease surface area which can obsorbe water , yes .


Laffy your a businessman would you take the risk ?

Very controversial, some interesting comments .

https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/18992026.carlisle-lidl-controversial-plans-warwick-road-recommended-approval/

Happy-are Lidl going in along the road and what are they doing to sort things?

Case study of the 2015 floods , interesting read.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=00d53785d4124453a384e88b7c709ac6

If we built a new ground out of town I'd probably call it a day.

The simple issue is though if we wanted to update Brunton park then it would have to match the current structural footprint due to flooding . Would have to make its resilient too floods which would cost more and would have nil chance of getting a loan to build it.

We all would prefer the club to stay in the center but it may not be possible . I will support this team no matter where they are in the city .

Making it resilient to floods would cost less in the long run, that's the point of doing it. Having the fusebox on the first floor and the wiring coming down via the ceiling etc costs a bit more first time, but so do energy saving light bulbs

The biggest problem with BP though is that its 3 times bigger capacity than our crowds. It's like a 10 bedroom mansion with two old biddies living in it. Knock down the bits we never use - flatten the petteril end, extend the pitch or the Neil into the space. Then build a new Warwick with new bars etc. Then knock down the main stand and add bog standard seating in its place as the crowds necessitate. Or see if any developers are daft or irresponsible enough to build St Aidans Gardens there. It's still look err unique and unlegolike , but fit for purpose

I've said this before they only reduce the affects of floods , they don't stop things like the structural damage cause by flooding. Also new structures would not get covered by insurance , as the would post date the 2005 and 2015 floods.

So we're stuck with the buildings on Brunton park and the current footprint .

Also your ideas mean more buildings which in the even of the flood may lead to more people getting flooded .

Although I know people won't listen because my Grammar (for some reason that make people think that your point of view is invalid) even if it based upon actually factually evidence.
https://www.todaysconveyancer.co.uk/partner-news/building-flood-plain/
https://www.groundsure.com/resources/building-flood-plain/

If we built a new ground out of town I'd probably call it a day.

The simple issue is though if we wanted to update Brunton park then it would have to match the current structural footprint due to flooding . Would have to make its resilient too floods which would cost more and would have nil chance of getting a loan to build it.

We all would prefer the club to stay in the center but it may not be possible . I will support this team no matter where they are in the city .

Making it resilient to floods would cost less in the long run, that's the point of doing it. Having the fusebox on the first floor and the wiring coming down via the ceiling etc costs a bit more first time, but so do energy saving light bulbs

The biggest problem with BP though is that its 3 times bigger capacity than our crowds. It's like a 10 bedroom mansion with two old biddies living in it. Knock down the bits we never use - flatten the petteril end, extend the pitch or the Neil into the space. Then build a new Warwick with new bars etc. Then knock down the main stand and add bog standard seating in its place as the crowds necessitate. Or see if any developers are daft or irresponsible enough to build St Aidans Gardens there. It's still look err unique and unlegolike , but fit for purpose

Put a council head lease above the structure and they will come.The pandemic has ruined conventional thinking on this kind of development funding but it has created an environment where the Government are stretching the balance sheet to create infrastructure projects.Stephenson was on R4 talking about it-but he would need someone else to run it in Carlisle.

The city is fortunate in having the M6/M74 a mile from its heart with three main access roads into it.It just needs someone who has been over the east side of the M6 to think outside the box.

Yeah, Preston is a gym and NHS I think.
However, we have had buildings available in the East Stand (subject to a lift going in and completing the works) since Knighton's days, and not a sniff of a taker.
I just think Carlisle as a city is a bit backward, in the nicest possible sense. Most of the suggestions made (without trying to be a negative ninny) are already taken, saturated, or just don't work.
Fairly full with supermarkets, multiple gyms, including a similar theory DW that did not work, hotels always fail, and a high street that is massively struggling, soon to get worse when Debenhams goes. Not sure what conference facilities we could have.
However, the main drawback we have is a dead end council and hopeless owners, not helped by the waste of space that is the Trust. Our food company owing owners cannot even sort a decent catering facility out, and the commercial department does not bear a mention, so good knows how this lot are going to fund a 7 day week opeartion.

Would you go into business with Knighton or our present owners?
No, nor would I.
and no there isn't a hope in hell they could manage a 7 day a week operation.

Always thought a out town cinema , laser quest and bowling alley might be worth a try .

Cinema - People have a false notion that they are dying out , but numbers show this is false. It's been a while since I've used it but always find getting to Carlisle Vue is just annoying , parking costs etc I always used to go to the plaza for the ease .

Laser quests - The current one is massively outed data , no parking but yet remains popular .

Bowling - So busy it's often hard to get a lane , once again had a get to due to traffic .

Added in a fastfood franchise which is lacking on the west side of the city to catch traffic leaving carlisle for west cumbira.

Vue are in financial trouble, so may be questions about Carlisles future.

Laser quest is being knocked down and supposedly moving to Denton Holme.

Hollywood bowl having major financial problems.

So maybe putting them altogether might not be too far fetched.

I believe that Workington's proposed stadium was to house NHS and Sellafield offices.
If a new ground was incorporated into the Southern bypass/Garden Village scheme a swanky hotel on that side of town may work for folk visiting the Northern Lakes/passing through to Scotland and might there be a possible tie-in with the racecourse who seem to have a much more proactive eye for business than our owners.

Always thought a out town cinema , laser quest and bowling alley might be worth a try .

Cinema - People have a false notion that they are dying out , but numbers show this is false. It's been a while since I've used it but always find getting to Carlisle Vue is just annoying , parking costs etc I always used to go to the plaza for the ease .

Laser quests - The current one is massively outed data , no parking but yet remains popular .

Bowling - So busy it's often hard to get a lane , once again had a get to due to traffic .

Added in a fastfood franchise which is lacking on the west side of the city to catch traffic leaving carlisle for west cumbira.

Yeah, Preston is a gym and NHS I think.
However, we have had buildings available in the East Stand (subject to a lift going in and completing the works) since Knighton's days, and not a sniff of a taker.
I just think Carlisle as a city is a bit backward, in the nicest possible sense. Most of the suggestions made (without trying to be a negative ninny) are already taken, saturated, or just don't work.
Fairly full with supermarkets, multiple gyms, including a similar theory DW that did not work, hotels always fail, and a high street that is massively struggling, soon to get worse when Debenhams goes. Not sure what conference facilities we could have.
However, the main drawback we have is a dead end council and hopeless owners, not helped by the waste of space that is the Trust. Our food company owing owners cannot even sort a decent catering facility out, and the commercial department does not bear a mention, so good knows how this lot are going to fund a 7 day week opeartion.

What are these facilities we see being part of the club which are going to rake the cash in, as I can't think of many clubs that have them.
Bolton and Blackpool have a hotel, and look how well that has gone. Both lose a bomb.
Leeds have mega conference facilities, same as a lot of bigger clubs, but are still hardly used apart from match days.
Preston have a museum that folk go to, but on match days mainly.
Which shops are going to want to rock up at BP or a Kingstown out of town development.
A decision needs to be made on football grounds, with anything else a bonus.
It justs seems an over used phrase.

Blackpool also has an independent gym next to the hotel and their main stand is home to Lancashire NHS offices, earns the club good money in rent. The trick we missed was when the County Council was selling up all their buildings around town and moving into their new purpose-built offices on Botchergate. Would love to know if the football club explored the possibility of going in with them enabling them to have their new offices in a new main stand at Brunton Park, above previous flood levels obviously.

Pretty sure Preston have rented out offices in their main stand aswell.

Then see you in 10 years

The government is on a mission to balance up and Carlisle will be on the list.Stephenson will know that and this is exactly the type of community asset that will be built by many towns and cities.

All you need is a government guarantee and the rest is filled in behind it

Zero faith in either Stephenson or the government’s ‘levelling up’ rhetoric. I’d love them to prove me wrong but it’s just not going to happen.

Like the football club, the city is stuck in the past. We’ve missed the boat now, and it’s difficult to envisage any realistic scenario through which we can find a new home. There is nobody connected with the club or the city who is capable of making the case for us.

Brunton Park is a noose around the neck of our club. I’ll get over yesterday’s disappointment at some point, but even then I’ll see no light at the end of the tunnel regarding our long term future.

I don’t see anything wrong with a sports campus, owned by the community, with a stadium and sports complex at its heart.

The council have said previously there was no need as we have the sheep mount, bitts park tennis, cricket ground and soccer city.

Problem is most of those have been flooded twice in recent years so it’s maybe got more ground now.

But where would you put it. Somewhere high with no rivers would be a start.

At the moment our Council are in ' knock it down mode ' blindly assuming the site will be worth more than a dilapidated building. But if the words are bigger than "if, but, what, no," we've no chance.

Nobody is going to take the club on just now-it’s too complicated

SUCCESSION MUST COME FIRST - never a truer word spoken.
Because the incumbent divots that we are lumbered with have no ambition or foresight whatsoever.
As long as 3500 are happy to continue to go and watch (when able) absolute garbage in a run down relic of a football ground every other week then nothing is going to change -certainly not for the better anyway.
Division 4 if we are lucky.

I don’t see anything wrong with a sports campus, owned by the community, with a stadium and sports complex at its heart.

The council have said previously there was no need as we have the sheep mount, bitts park tennis, cricket ground and soccer city.

Problem is most of those have been flooded twice in recent years so it’s maybe got more ground now.

But where would you put it. Somewhere high with no rivers would be a start.

I don’t see anything wrong with a sports campus, owned by the community, with a stadium and sports complex at its heart.

I cannot see a situation where private equity is going to dip in and borrow a couple of hundred million to develop what the future requirements are. So, alternative models are needed.

But, the reality is, unless there is a big revenue stream outside of footy once a fortnight, it will never happen, how can it.?

Carlisle has nothing to attract strong weekly revenue. Most major City's have a ' National Conference ' of some type at least once a month, some more frequently, in London's case, daily.

This attracts thousands to the City to attend from those setting up and braking down, to staffing during the conference . Even the smallest of events takes three days. All need hotels and restaurants and facilities.

There is allot happening, we just don't open our eyes wide enough.

We’ve had 10+ years of the custodians and we’ve achieved nothing of note on/off the pitch. Looks like this season will be another failure, although I don’t blame them.

We’ve no future under them, apart from getting by.

Who knows what would have happened if Laffys consortium got in. I’m pretty sure it’d be more professional and exciting though with a vision and plan for the future.

If we upgrade BP it’ll have to be funded by whoever the owners are at the time as no ones going to lend to build on a floodplain.

I feel a community stadium, by the council, would have complaints as we can’t get bin collections right and pot holes, there’ll be some that’ll complain if we can’t pay for those how can they pay for a new stadium. It’s always the way and you can’t blame them.

Then see you in 10 years

The government is on a mission to balance up and Carlisle will be on the list.Stephenson will know that and this is exactly the type of community asset that will be built by many towns and cities.

All you need is a government guarantee and the rest is filled in behind it

I don't share your confidence sadly , although I agree with what needs done I don't think it will be.

Then see you in 10 years

The government is on a mission to balance up and Carlisle will be on the list.Stephenson will know that and this is exactly the type of community asset that will be built by many towns and cities.

All you need is a government guarantee and the rest is filled in behind it